HellToupee

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Feb. 05 2003,12:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't really understand why so many people seem to feel a bit disgusted towards the Russian soldiers that once fought there. Everyone keeps talking about the jews that were killed and all the more known countries that lost a large amount of men. But none of that can be compared to the amount of Russians that died. I have 4 videos of Operation Barbarossa (a total of about 4 hours, from the first till the last day) and if i remember correct, the red army lost 10 to 12 million soldiers... No doubt about it, they deserve some more respect...<span id='postcolor'> The thing was, when the Jews were set free, they didn't attempt to exterminate every German they came across. Not only did the Red Army commit the biggest mass rape in recent history, (Researched and documented in the book 'Berlin' ), but they shot pretty much every German male (Fascist bandits come as young as 8 it appears! ) they came across. Out of 150,000 Pows taken at Stalingrad, 1,500 came back alive, ten years later! I could go on, but in short, it sickens me that people keep praising the Soviet forces for the 'good' they did. This was general policy for all the armed forces! Even the regular German Army had guide lines in the Eastern front, rape could get you courtmartialed. In the Red Army it was actively encouraged! I suggest you read 'Berlin'. It will certainly temper your views on the Red Army.<span id='postcolor'> what do u think happened to russian POWs, u think germans treated them well, what about that SS group that followed the german 6th army and exterminated civilians, german soldiers took clothes and blankets from civilians and kiked them out of theri homes so they could use them. The russians returned the favour, they wouldnt be too happy about hving their country invaded and cities turned to rubble. What ever the russians did i can guaratee you the germans had already done it worse to them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 05 2003,11:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You need to do some reading on how Saddam treats his people before you talk about it. You really think someone's kid is an enemy of the state?<span id='postcolor'> Yea i reckon, hay fspilot can u pass me that propaganda leaflet to me thx

mozillas on 11 megs http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub....ler.exe

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 05 2003,09:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's a hypothetical question. And like I've said and has been proven countless times in this thread, this was is not about oil. The international community simply wouldn't let us do it.<span id='postcolor'> What do u call the UN, if they say no that is teh international community, its soo obvious this is oil, do you have any idea how important oil is and is to become in comming years, you are calling me blind when you cant even see teh big picture the real reasons the consiquences. Iraq was doing fine before the gulf war it wasnt till after it was the country left the way it was, another war will make it worse kill many people, tehy wont be happy when the US kills their relatives.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 05 2003,06:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is a larger threat to the UN's credibility? The US's pursuit of the UN's approval in an attack on Iraq, or the UN's own unwillingness to enforce its own resoultions? Hussein has breached multiple UN resoultions that were prerequisites to a ceasefire in 1991. However, the UN (minus the US and company) have shown a marked unwillingness to enforce its own rules. Now, to me, the UN's unwillingness to follow up on its rules is an entirely larger threat to its relevance and credibility than the US is. It just tells other countries that you can basically tell the UN to fuck off as long as you sell oil and have weapons deals with members of the Security Council<span id='postcolor'> So bassically what you are sayin is everyone must do what the UN says or feel the consiquences until the UNs beliefs conflict with the US which then means without a doubt the UN is wrong and the US is right and it must be ignored.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Feb. 05 2003,05:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The basic idea of communism is very nice, but it's extremely hard to use it in an effective way. That probable is why so many people fear it, it's a nice idea, but it can destroy a country because it's almost impossible to use in a government without getting in trouble. My grandpa was in the resistance, he did a lot of stuff that most people would never do, he doesn't talk a lot about it and i don't ask him questions. He knows stuff that only one other person knows on this whole planet, that person's probable already died by now, he knows top secret stuff that only a very small amount of people were allowed to know. He has told me some stories about what he did, they're all very impressive. I sometimes wonder how it's possible that he was never executed. If you want to hear one of his stories, i'll post them... I don't really understand why so many people seem to feel a bit disgusted towards the Russian soldiers that once fought there. Everyone keeps talking about the jews that were killed and all the more known countries that lost a large amount of men. But none of that can be compared to the amount of Russians that died. I have 4 videos of Operation Barbarossa (a total of about 4 hours, from the first till the last day) and if i remember correct, the red army lost 10 to 12 million soldiers... No doubt about it, they deserve some more respect...<span id='postcolor'> Exactly, people just seem to assume communist russia = evil, in il2 forums one guy posted he flys german planes because he cant stand teh idea of even flying for the commies, we found it quite strange he would rather fight on the nazi led side. Ihave read teh book stalingrad it was very good.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 05 2003,08:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> US is sayin we need to invade iraq because they have broken UN rules, well big deal the US disregades them and dosnt follow yet they stil use that argument. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Us giving him vaccinations, as well as other countries, was us giving them to an ally. We were trying to help people.<span id='postcolor'> Yep bombing their people intot hte ground putting a puppet in charge and taking one of thw worlds largest supplies of oil, thats helping for ya. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If saddam had nuked New York City, but still denyed having WMDs, would you still believe him?<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When did he nuke york? If the US killed 10s of thousands of civilians and took every drop of oil for them selfs would you stil try argue it was good? <span id='postcolor'> What dose that mean? clearly you know nothing, if you would talk to an iraq you might get an idea of the country, Soccer is very popular, police dont kill people at random etc.

yes it wasnt lead the best, but many people refered to communism as evil, russia wasnt evil just stalin wasnt the best but it was the people as a whole you look at.

i think everyone thinks ME is teh worst a friend of mine had it soo many things would not work on it, essentially it is windows 98 made worse.

Germany could never have defeated the USSR, cant rember who said to stalin you can retreat to the urals and you will stil win. Russia was too big, it had many more numbers than the germany and produced things at a much greater rate, russian tank production 1943 was 1200 tanks a month, german was 400, their airforce after getting beat into the ground was starting to gain confidence and better planes than the germans. The germans could have gottin much further with out hitler in charge but i dont belive they would haave won. The war in the west helped but the bombing campain wasnt as effective as people think, german production contined to increase until late 1944.

y dou view communism as bad its differnt it takes the idea everyone is equal and trys to make everyone equal, the russians belived in their country they belived in communism they wernt trying to escape to the west, russian is worse off now than when it was communist, a farmer that helped sum New Zealanders makea new axel for their bike ( they had be riding across europe from russia to mongolia to china) said before we had little freedom and money, now we have no money and all the freedom we could want. The system is different to demoracy it isnt bad but is hard to get right dont knock the systems look at what the primary goal of the system was. As far as ive seen everyone labels communism evil( i am not a communist tho so dont call me a biased communist)

mozilla has email client irc client and other things like a web page creator and stuff built in, the latest net scape is based on mozilla code jsut removing the good bits and making it 3 times as big. IE is one of the few internet browses left that stil do not use tabs, the open new window feature is crap comapred to tabs where you can have one windowed with 10 different pages loaded and can access them at the clik of a button with out clutting the task bar.

www.mozilla.org after you have tried the nho pop up option and tabs of thsi browser you will never go back set in options for mouse buttion 3 (or pressin down on mouse well) to open link in a tab it is a great browser. IE is a hunk of junk i never use it and has many flaws.

ive seen a helecopter do an auto rotate, it went up quite high in a hover they cut off the power and just dropped straight down and made a nice soft landing.

ive seen a helecopter do an auto rotate, it went up quite high in a hover they cut off the power and just dropped straight down and made a nice soft landing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 04 2003,00:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK... it's time for my next piece of bet-ya-didn't-know-this-about-the-GulfWar trivia. Meet April Galspie. She was the United States' ambassador to Iraq and personally told Saddam Hussein, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts such as your dispute with Kuwait." Many interpreted this as an American green light to aggression because 8 days later Iraq invaded Kuwait. Ms. Galspie, who was relieved of her post, later testified before the Senate: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...we foolishly did not realize Saddam Hussein was stupid...<span id='postcolor'> (Sounds like something FS might say.) <span id='postcolor'> yes this is exactlly it, most iraqs belive they were betrayed by teh US for this very incidence.

lol man this guy is a crack up. In fact i will take that cookie, and it is benefical to the US to have iraqs oil because then they wont have to trade iraq anything to get it they can pump it them selfs and sell it, also currently a great deal of iraqs oil fields rights belong to other countries so at teh moment the US dose not have access to much of iraqs oil, the sactions mean iraq can import the tools to pump more oil fields so at the moment much of it is just sitting there waiting for sum greedy person to take it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pjsmith @ Feb. 02 2003,03:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The single most important feature I want to see in Flashpoint 2 is: maximum scaleability of performance. The game should be designed from the ground up to work well on the average PC, not force you to buy a 3 Gigahertz Pentium 4 and Geforce FX card with 256 meg of onboard memory. I have Flashpoint GOTY edition and, after a bit of tweaking, have gotten it to work fine on my system (850 MHz Athlon, 256Mb RAM, Radeon 7500), but it was a bit of a struggle - the autodetect feature in Preferences wasn't much of a help. I really hope the developers play close attention to making sure that Flashpoint 2 can work smoothly with the average system of 2005, or whenever the game is released.<span id='postcolor'> yea i got similar specs and half the maps people make online are made by someone with a 2000gz or sumthing and no thought for how lower enders will cope. I find a many of the chain of command maps ive tried also run too slow for my 850mhz, i need an upgrade so hard to find a place to by just a cpu,i hate shoppin online.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pjsmith @ Feb. 02 2003,03:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The single most important feature I want to see in Flashpoint 2 is: maximum scaleability of performance. The game should be designed from the ground up to work well on the average PC, not force you to buy a 3 Gigahertz Pentium 4 and Geforce FX card with 256 meg of onboard memory. I have Flashpoint GOTY edition and, after a bit of tweaking, have gotten it to work fine on my system (850 MHz Athlon, 256Mb RAM, Radeon 7500), but it was a bit of a struggle - the autodetect feature in Preferences wasn't much of a help. I really hope the developers play close attention to making sure that Flashpoint 2 can work smoothly with the average system of 2005, or whenever the game is released.<span id='postcolor'> yea i got similar specs and half the maps people make online are made by someone with a 2000gz or sumthing and no thought for how lower enders will cope. I find a many of the chain of command maps ive tried also run too slow for my 850mhz, i need an upgrade so hard to find a place to by just a cpu,i hate shoppin online.

i guess there is no way u are going to listen to commen sense and reason, the brainwashing of propaganda has done its job FS pilot serves as an example of what it is capable of.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Feb. 03 2003,14:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is a total lump of shit. Honestly that is just trying to incite a flame war. Comparing Bush to Hitler is blowing things completely out of proportion, you do not see him standing on his little podeum ranting about how bad Muslims and Arabs are. He has told us that SADDAM is evil, not the Iraqi people. Also, Who the hell are you to speak for us, your not even an American. After S11 our national pride was higher than ever. Yes we'd know about a preemptive strike, and no our entire country is not for it. You should really refrain from posting inflammatory bullshit, its really weak and even more pathetic than it looks. <span id='postcolor'> dont u understand a war against iraq is a war against the iraq people, while saddiam sits in a bunker some where the amerian forces will blow the iraqis to bits, you think the amerians will walk in and put a cap in saddiams head and they all lived happyly ever after no the iraqis will defend there country and they will be killed. This war is in no way in their best interests, wars bring only death and destruction, it will further generate anti US hate, why do they hate the US soo much? well bush shows u time and time again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,14:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">THERE IS EVIDENCE UN inspection teams found it Iraqi defectors have confessed about it for some reason you're ignoring it.<span id='postcolor'> then y isnt the UN convinced then why have teh inspectors found nothing, i am not ignoreing what isnt there, even our media has big head lines weapon inspectors find nothing.

raq blinds Bush to world picture 03.02.2003 By PAUL G. BUCHANAN Ye shall reap what ye have sown" goes the saying. In the case of United States foreign policy, there is a significant possibility that what is harvested will be bitter fruit. The desire of the Bush Administration to recast the global political landscape in an image more favourable to the US, using the 9/11 terrorist attacks as the justification for unilateral military intervention against hostile states, has blinded it to some of the complexities of the current world scene. Consider three areas of US foreign policy concern: Venezuela, North Korea and Iraq. Clearly enough, the US has had its fill of Saddam Hussein and sees his removal as a priority. Amid the bellicose bluster coming out of Washington, the justification for his forced ouster resides in the belief that the intersection of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and terrorism is a matter of when, not if, and that it is most likely to occur sooner rather than later in Iraq if Saddam is not removed from power. Hence, whether or not the UN weapons inspectors find evidence of WMD stockpiling in Iraq (and many believe that they will not, since intelligence analysts believe these were moved to Syria well in advance of recent UN security council resolutions), the US is determined to show Saddam the door at the point of a bayonet in order to install a pro-Western secular regime that will open up its oil reserves to the US and its allies. That will allow the US to move troops from Saudi Arabia to Iraq to buffer against Iran while simultaneously reducing tensions over the infidels' presence near Islamic holy sites such as Mecca (as well as reducing Saudi control over Opec price-fixing). Whether or not this is a pipe dream, the pre-positioning of troops and materiel suggests that the assault on Iraq will begin in mid-February at the earliest. But complications have risen as a result of US policy towards two other countries. In April the US supported an abortive coup against the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, whose major crime was to employ populist rhetoric and to rail against the petroleum oligarchy that controlled political power from 1958 until 1998. Although that coup failed and left the US embarrassed and exposed, the coup-plotters were encouraged by the US support and in early December 2002 began a general strike to force Chavez from office that is now into its sixth week. This has crippled Venezuelan oil exports, of which 13 per cent go to the US market. Without that supply, US retail prices have increased sharply, and worse yet, the US may have to dip into its strategic oil reserves if it is to prosecute the war on Iraq while the Venezuelan crisis remains unresolved. The irony is that it is a US-backed disloyal opposition that is complicating US strategic calculations, and its nemesis Chavez who would like to resume normal oil production and exports. For its part, the timing of the North Korean decision to resume plutonium reprocessing and withdraw from the International Atomic Energy Association was brilliant. A year ago it was named part of the Axis of Evil even though it had no provable links to al Qaeda and in fact was engaged in a delicate rapprochement with South Korea on normalising relations between the two states. Seeing that the US was using a variety of justifications to force regime change in Iraq over UN objections, the North Koreans undoubtedly calculated that they would be next on the US hit list. Rather than wait for such an eventuality, the regime in Pyongyang took the opportunity of recent South Korean elections that saw a US critic elected to the presidency, as well as of the fact that the US was fully occupied with its war preparations in Iraq, to announce its renewed nuclear aspirations. Caught off-guard, the US has seen its hypocrisy on weapons of mass destruction rendered transparent, since North Korea is a far worse weapons proliferator and nuclear menace than Saddam. (Recall that about a month ago a shipment of North Korean missiles destined for Yemen was intercepted by Spanish and US forces and then let go.) Moreover, the US bluff was called to the point that it has been forced to negotiate a nuclear weapons for economic aid swap rather than threaten the North Korean regime with war. Since North Korea and Iraq are trading partners in weapons as well as other goods, the North Koreans may well have done Saddam a favour by complicating the picture. More importantly, it exposes the lack of thought and contingency planning in post-September 11 US foreign policy planning. The larger issue is that most of this mess is of the US' own making. In not working through multilateral channels, in ignoring or bypassing the UN and the requisite diplomatic niceties of protocol and sovereignty, it has produced a backlash as well as worldwide unintended results. In the meantime Osama bin Laden remains at large and al Qaeda is undefeated. With the future of Iraq very much an open question even if Saddam is ousted (since both Iraqi Kurds and Sunnis have expressed desires for partition and independence, much to the dismay of Iraq's neighbours), the entire thrust of the US approach to international affairs needs a major review before, rather than after, the assault on Saddam is launched. * Paul G. Buchanan is a former US defence department analyst and consultant who lectures at the University of Auckland.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,14:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good to see that you're sticking to your personal attacks on me instead of making any real points. Makes my job much easier.<span id='postcolor'> lol... what do you know about real points, you point is saddiam is making nukes to attack the US which many people have givin you valid reasons why this is as likly as pigs are to fly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,13:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 03 2003,06:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">again plz use facts not just what u think or the media says, again why will saddiam use WMD? You credibilty decreases with every post, much like the US's evidence.<span id='postcolor'> Lets look at the post I've already made. You don't buy bullets to put on your mantle. Saddam is not manufacturing weapons of mass destruction to use as a paperweight. He's going to use them. Either against a civilian population like he's already done, or as a means of intimidation. The US is only maintaining it's stockpile so other people won't attack us.<span id='postcolor'> what if he has WMDs so people wont attack him like the US? all this reasoning is easly turned around, maybee you forget which country has used WMDs against civilian populations.